GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 24, 2017

Traffic Flow – Or Parking?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments

The so-called ‘Tranformative Concepts’ for dealing with the issue of parking to in our activity centres basically proposes

To flog off to private development as much of council owned car parks as possible – the terminology became ‘repurposing’!
To replace these car parks with one single above ground car park of at least 2 or 3 storeys.

One Mile Grid was then commissioned to survey ‘traffic’ flow in various streets. Their brief is defined as

Without stating the obvious, traffic flow and parking should be two distinct areas. It appears that council is determined to conflate both issues in the attempt to provide support for its highly questionable recommendations! Not surprisingly, the results of the One Mile Grid analysis for Elsternwick, Carnegie, Bentleigh concluded that – The results show that all intersections analysed are currently operating under ‘excellent’ conditions during both the morning and afternoon peak hours with minimal queues and delays experienced by motorists. Only Orrong Road brought up a ‘good’ condition report rather than ‘excellent’. Many residents travelling along these roads/streets would beg to differ!

We are not traffic engineers. We are simply residents attempting to understand how such results can lead to the recommendations when:

No account has been taken of anticipated residential developments in the area
No account has been taken of car parking spots in nearby residential streets
No account has been taken of council car park occupancy rates
No account has been taken of occupancy rates in surrounding streets
No account has been taken of car ownership in the area
No account has been taken of parking restrictions in the area
No account has been taken of ‘through’ traffic – ie not remaining in the activity centre itself but just passing through

If council is indeed sincere about providing adequate car parking in its activity centres, then one must expect far more than a highly suspect report that does nothing more than focus on ‘traffic flow’ at certain intersections and concludes that all is hunky dorey for the most part and that public land can be flogged off for more private development.

By way of contrast we urge all residents to read the following that comes from Moonee Valley council’s amendment seeking to introduce both a parking overlay for the Moonee Ponds Activity Centre and a developer contribution of up to $13,000 per each car parking waiver. Then ask yourselves would Glen Eira ever attempt something like this given its pro-development agenda? We’ve uploaded the Moonee Valley traffic analysis, (a 175 page document) HERE

April 20, 2017

Now For 18 Storeys!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments

The latest outrage in development applications concerns 9-13 Derby Road, Caulfield East. Advertising has now finished for an application that proposes:

18 storeys
158 student accommodation units ranging in size from 15 square metres to 32 square metres. Please note that both Monash and Whitehorse have a requirement in their planning scheme about minimum size of apartments and Monash stipulates that for ‘self-contained’ units the minimum size be 24 square metres of floor area. Such clauses are absent in the Glen Eira planning scheme!
1 shop of 151 square metres
A car parking waiver of over 40 car parking spaces
Under a Heritage overlay

The fact that this has not been refused outright at manager level is astounding given that various other applications of the recent past have not been advertised at all. Recent manager refusals include the Development Plan for Precinct 2 of Caulfield Village (400+ units); 8 storeys in Hawthorn Road; 7 storeys in Neerim Road and another 8 storeys in Rosstown Road. Yet this one gets through unscathed! Why? We can only surmise that this is because of the state of the current planning scheme and the wheeling and dealing that is going on between Monash, the VPA, Council, State Government, and other vested interests in the Phoenix Precinct area.

To rub further salt into the wounds the planners can’t even proof read properly, or don’t even know where the site is located – ie Hawthorn East! Because the area is zoned Commercial 1 it is therefore okay to have zero permeability and 95% site coverage on a 540 square metre block.

Finally, here is what it purports to look like –

April 18, 2017

McKinnon: ‘Suss’ Stats – Again!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

A huge gulf exists between resident responses to the ‘surveys’ on ‘transforming’ our activity centres, and what is portrayed as the ‘results’ of this ‘consultation’. The McKinnon report is another example of a work of fiction that fails to accurately represent what residents said – especially in the category of ‘private development’. Here is the pie chart claiming to depict the results –

Please note the following:

To claim that ‘there was no clear agreement on suitable building heights’ is rather rich given that residents have never been asked – what do you think is an appropriate development height in any of the activity centres!
The claim that only 27.8% of comments were opposed to development is utter nonsense. On this topic of ‘private development’ there were 64 valid responses. We’ve ignored blanks and those marked as n/a. Of these 64 responses, a clear 39 were opposed to development (highlighted in orange below). That makes it 60.93% of responses were opposed to development
The report also states that ‘Many felt it was the popularity of the suburb services, particularly the high school’ that resulted in ‘increased population’. A more honest response could have been that increased population is a result of the zoning. Further, of the 64 comments only 3 mention schools at all – that is 4.68% – yet it rates a prominent mention in the report!

Please read the following comments and judge for yourselves as to the validity, honesty, and accuracy of this ‘consultation’ report.

April 12, 2017

When Is ‘Open Space’ Not ‘Open Space’?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments

Booran Road has finally been opened to the public. It is not without controversy. Whether one loves the new park or not many, many issues require investigation as to how this development has been conceived, handled, and the cost(s) involved.

For a council that has the least amount of public open space in the state, it is unbelievable that an area can be designated as ‘open space’ yet fenced off behind tall (and expensive) gates and access denied. This is the situation at the new Booran Road ‘park’.

We estimate the closed off area to be in the vicinity of 2500 square metres of a 1.6 hectare site. What are the reasons for this exclusion and how can it be justified? Are we to assume that this ‘urban forest’ will become the private open space of the neighbouring apartment building? If so, have they paid for any of this?

The next issue is why council continues to change plans that were not part of any community consultation and without warning or costings provided? Below is part of the council ‘consultation’ flyer which reveals a totally different park to what we now have. The green open expanses depicted in this flyer have shrunk dramatically and been replaced by more and more concrete.

The third issue is cost. According to a recent Leader article council admits to an $11 million expenditure – but they have refused to provide any real details of these costs. We estimate the expenditure to have been far and above this figure. Even one consultant engineer employed for the project puts the figure at $12 million. The image below comes from Linkedin –

When ratepayer funds are used to create a ‘park’ that:

varies considerably from what was proposed
when council isn’t forthcoming on total expenditure
when public open space is barricaded and the public excluded

then residents have every right to question how well their rates are being used and whether or not this project is another example of sheer profligacy and poor management, plus lack of transparency and accountability.

As far as the aesthetics of the site go, opinion is divided. Some believe that what has been created is no more than a concrete Disneyland (suitable for young children perhaps) but certainly not catering to the consensus of opinion that desired ‘passive open space’. Time will tell……..

April 7, 2017

Agenda: Car Parking & Planning Applications

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments

The current agenda features 3 items of particular interest. Two involve planning applications and the third is an officer’s response to a request for data on car parking waivers as a potential tool to use at VCAT. What is presented in each of these reports we find staggering and wonder what on earth is going on with planning in this council.

Data on Car Parking Waivers

As per usual, the report concludes that – It is considered that the extensive resources required to collate car parking waiver data could be more effectively directed towards creating the strategic basis for future car parking provisions. By doing so, much needed clarity can be provided to the town planning process in Glen Eira with subsequent benefits in defending VCAT appeals.

Backing up the ‘do nothing approach’ we get – A comprehensive audit of past planning decisions to obtain car parking waiver data would be a resource intensive exercise.

The ultimate recommendation therefore reads – That Council acknowledges this report and the strategic work that is underway which will ultimately lead to clearer and more effective planning provisions around car parking.

We also urge readers to note the following paragraph – In terms of specific controls,Council’s adopted Planning Scheme Review Workplan is committed to investigating the use of Car Parking Overlays and Parking Precinct Plans. These controls can provide greater clarity for decision makers, the community, and permit applicants through location specific car parking rates or developer contributions.

COMMENT

Resident comments on the planning scheme review were strongly in favour of developer contributions. Here we find ‘or developer contributions’ and this is the only time in the entire report that this issue rates a mention. Question: does council really have any intention of introducing a levy for car parking waivers? Given that the emphases is entirely on overlays and Parking Precinct Plans, which were promised in 2003/4 – our skepticism is probably warranted!
More of the same from this council? – ie let’s not do anything for the moment until our structure plans are in place! We do not see how the collation of empirical data should impact the ongoing development of structure planning. We would also assume that such data should be available on council’s computer systems. If it isn’t then why not? – especially when millions upon millions are spent on council’s systems. Surely it is time that some decent programming was undertaken so that all data pertaining to an issue is there at the click of a button?

The Planning Applications

Below are two screen dumps that show the zoning for the applications. One in North Road, Ormond (5 storeys, 4 units) and one in Jasper Road, McKinnon (4 storeys, 4 units). Worth noting that council hasn’t used zoning maps, but instead included aerial shots which (perhaps intentionally) do not show up the planning contexts of these sites. Before proceeding further, readers might like to hazard a guess as to which application was refused and which was granted a permit?

North Road Application

The officer’s recommendation was refusal. Yet scattered throughout the report we find the following:

The waiving of one visitor car spot was fine since – given the site’s proximity to Glen Orme Ave there would be ample on street car spaces for the one visitor car space shortfall
It is considered that the proposed development complies with Council’s Housing Diversity Area Policy. The height, density, mass and scale of the development is considered appropriate for this location.
The height and scale of the proposal are in keeping with the emerging character of the areaencouraged by State and Local Policy.The proposal has a maximum height of 16.7 metres. This is comparable to the approved development under construction next door at 534-538 North Road which also has a height of 16.7 metres.

On overshadowing – Whilst there will be overshadowing created by the proposal it is not considered to have any unreasonable impact on any adjoining land given the mixed use zoning to the east and west and the non-residential use immediately to the rear.
Internal amenity is deemed satisfactory

Thus on all the major ‘criteria’ this proposal meets the requirements. The refusal boils down to laneway access and car stackers and that the plans have not ‘satisfactorily demonstrated’ that access and layout provide a ‘safe environment for users’. So we now have the situation where an application for 5 storeys in a Mixed Use Zone and surrounded by GRZ, and other commercial sites that are already 5 storeys is refused on grounds that we doubt will stand up at VCAT. Besides, council already thinks that 8 storeys is appropriate for the Ormond Tower!

Jasper Road Application

This application gets the nod of approval – despite the fact that it directly abuts a Neighbourhood Residential Zone; no onsite parking is proposed for the food outlet, and no visitor car parking for the 4 units (ie the magical number is 5!). We then get these extraordinary components –

Transport planning is against waiving of the car parking spot for the food outlet but in the end it is considered ‘acceptable’ to waive the requirement because of the ‘availability of public transport’, and ‘onsite car parking’. Isn’t North Road also close to public transport?
Internal amenity is only ‘generally appropriate’ and this can be fixed by a condition requiring a window or a skylight
The laneway of 3.5 metres is considered to be a ‘sufficient buffer’ to the NRZ residents
Car stacker is ‘generally satisfactory’ but more detail is required! (Note the contrast of this to the North Road application!)

CONCLUSIONS?

How about some consistency?
How about providing the full facts – ie width of laneway in North Road application?

Finally, just to add salt to the wounds, the hole in the ground opposite the Jasper road application was originally granted a permit for 4 storeys in 2014 by council. The land and permit were then on-sold and we now have another application for –

The construction of a five storey, mixed use building above basement car park (comprising a food and drink premises and 45 dwellings); a reduction of car parking requirements; waiver of loading bay requirements; alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1; construction of buildings and works within a Special Building Overlay

What does this all this say about council considering ‘cumulative impact’ on street car parking spaces and on the overall approach to providing transparent and credible officer reports?

April 6, 2017

What’s With ‘Local Centres’?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments

The image above depicts the position of a recent decision handed down at VCAT for 92 Kooyong Road, Caulfield North. The applicant got his permit for a 4 storey building with office and dwellings. We highlight this decision because it has major ramifications for all areas nominated as ‘local centres’ in council’s planning scheme – and there are stacks of these little stretches of shops, offices all zoned commercial and all surrounded by residential dwellings. Here is the list (and many have already been exploited) –

Patterson

Glen Eira Rd/Hotham St

Town Hall Precinct

Mackie Rd

Chesterville Rd/South Rd

Crimea (Kooyong Rd)

Gardenvale

Mackie Rd/Centre Rd

McKinnon Rd/East Boundary Rd

Bambra Rd/North Rd

Poath Rd/North Rd

Tucker Rd/Patterson Rd

Murrumbeena Rd/Oakleigh Rd

Hawthorn Rd/Inkerman Rd

Orange Rd/Warrigal Rd

Koorang Rd/Truganini Rd

McKinnon Rd/Tucker Rd

Brewer Rd/Todd St

Bignell Rd/Matthews Rd

Kooyong Rd/Glen Huntly Rd

Scanlon Ct/South Rd

Clarence St/East Boundary Rd

North Rd/East Boundary Rd

Thus far no mention whatsoever has been made of these ‘local centres’ in council’s current work program. If the flood gates have now well and truly opened then it is incumbent on council to ensure that any strategic planning addresses the issues. We also remind readers that many of the above listed streets are already seeing 4 and 5 storey developments abutting residential properties.

April 4, 2017

More Mumbo-Jumbo?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments

Alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear for residents as a result of council’s latest news item on its proposed planning agenda. (See: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/News-and-media/Latest-news/Transforming-our-neighbourhood-together)

Several things are clear:

There will NOT BE ANY STRUCTURE PLANNING for the myriad of neighbourhood centres in the foreseeable future. All that will happen is the production of an Activity Centres Strategy which will consist of a broad ‘vision’ and ‘guidelines’ that will undoubtedly go into the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), plus its probable inclusion as a ‘reference document’.

The promise of community representation on a steering committee for the Virginia Estate development from the start of the project (strongly voiced by Athanasopolous and Delahunty) appears to have been conveniently forgotten given this carefully phrased announcement –

In order to form a community led vision and key objectives for the precinct, we are conducting our own community consultation. This will inform the development of a structure plan, which will guide what can be built on the site.

Visit www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/eastvillage to tell us what you would like East Village to look like into the future.

The opportunity to provide feedback on this stage closes Sunday 16 April.

There will be further opportunities to provide feedback once a draft structure plan has been developed.

Murrumbeena and Hughesdale, despite what the Transforming Concept document states, will not be part of the structure planning program. Instead, council will be getting ready for major ‘value capture’ development as a result of the level crossing removals – ie Recommendations to the State Government’s Level Crossing Removal Authority, with suggested projects for Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Hughesdale

Of greatest concern is the following –

We will use the community feedback on your concerns regarding development in residential neighbourhoods to develop new building and development guidelines.

There will also be a more detailed focus on Bentleigh, Carnegie and Elsternwick.

These guidelines will shape future development for land in activity centres zoned as Commercial One Zone, General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone.

No mention of reviewing the zones themselves or the borders of these zones. No mention as to whether these ‘guidelines’ will result in revised schedules or merely be part of the MSS. No mention as whether these guidelines will be a ‘one size fits all’ across all neighbourhood centres or will cater to the individual needs of each specific centre.

There is much in this media release that is (deliberately?) vague and even contradicts previous statements. What is entirely ignored, and of major importance is the Minister’s recent announcement of changes to Plan Melbourne via his gazetting of Amendment C110. The changes provide councils with the opportunity to rework their schedules and to provide clear ‘neighbourhood character objectives’ for both the NRZ and GRZ areas. This involves much, much more than ‘building and development guidelines’.

April 1, 2017

Financial Transparency?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

Booran Reserve playground in Glen Huntly could be best in Melbourne

Bianca Carmona, Caulfield Glen Eira Leader

April 1, 2017 12:00am

A CHILD’S smile might be priceless to most, but it comes with a hefty price tag of almost $11 million in Glen Eira.

The council has spent $10.8 million creating what could be Melbourne’s most expensive playground at Glen Huntly’s Booran Reserve.

It is almost twice the cost of the Royal Park Nature Play Playground next to the Royal Children’s Hospital, which opened two years ago and is considered one of Melbourne’s best.

By comparison, neighbouring Bayside Council has approved funding of almost the same amount ($10.48 million) to improve more than 60 play areas over the next 10 years.Booran Reserve in Glenhuntly will open soon.

The Leader asked Glen Eira council what bang ratepayers were getting for their buck, but the council refused to reveal a breakdown of the final bill, acknowledging only that the State Government had provided $700,000.

Leader can reveal the water-themed playground of the future boasts Australia’s first double-dome climbing net, custom-made play equipment, a water play area, outdoor gallery space, urban forest corridor and double flying fox.

Glen Eira Council infrastructure, environment and leisure director Samantha Krull said the reserve, which was formerly a reservoir, included a range of spaces that provided for play, activity and relaxation.

The construction of the playground at the corner of Glenhuntly Rd and Booran Rd is now almost five months behind schedule, building anticipation about its opening on Sunday.

Comments from the Glen Eira Residents Action Group were mostly positive, with member Vicki Howson writing: “Wow, looks fabulous … can’t wait to take my grandchildren here.”

But Ratepayers Victoria vice-president Jack Davis wasn’t impressed, saying the price tag was “ridiculous”.

“It’s an exorbitant use of ratepayers’ funds,” he said.

A Community Fun Day will be held at the reserve on Sunday, April 9.

The official opening will be held on Tuesday, April 11, by Victorian Minister for Innovation Philip Dalidakis.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/booran-reserve-playground-in-glen-huntly-could-be-best-in-melbourne/news-story/f132e57ea7cb7b1b7ebba5ca420d6230

March 30, 2017

The Bentleigh ‘Concepts’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[11] Comments

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Every single resident should read the ‘transformative concept review’ created by Planisphere. As a strategic document that is supposed to set the vision for the next 20 to 30 years, it falls well short of the mark in our view. Our concerns with this ‘review’ are numerous. In a nutshell, we find:

The objective is to sell off as much public land as possible
Recommendations are impractical and impossible to deliver
Corporate memory is non-existent. This results in unbelievable profligacy.
The incorporation of recommendations that are not what residents said they wanted, or ignoring what residents stated
Inaccuracies of statement after statement

We will start off with an analysis of the Bentleigh ‘concepts’ and proceed with the bullet points made above as headings.

Selling off public land

The Bentleigh Activity Centre has 6 car parks (one of which council doesn’t even know if it owns – ie Aldi!!!). What is proposed in superb double-speak is a ‘repurposing’ – ie sell off- of some of these car parks to commercial interests and the creation of a multi-storey carpark of 2 to 3 storeys. No costings of course, no time scale, no nothing! Instead we are left with the ‘promise’ of increased car parking spaces. Yet, the sites of this new car park are also highly questionable. If all car parks go, then residents will be forced to congregate even more in one single high rise concrete structure. Will this create less patronage of the centre or more? What is the evidence to support either position? And why high rise? Why not underground with a large public open space above as Stonnington is doing? We appreciate that council must recoup some money for any of these ventures, but the outcomes must be positive and not create more traffic problems which we believe this will do, or be deleterious to businesses when people can’t get easy access to car parking.

Impractical Recommendations

The desire for more shops, restaurants, cafes, and night-life sounds wonderful. The reality is that council has very little control over what kind of shops go into an area. Their level of intervention is limited to brothels, porn shops, massage parlours, alcohol etc. Council cannot tell an applicant to open up a restaurant when he wants to open up a $2 shop! And if hours are extended for restaurants until late evenings, then what impact will this have on parking. Will all restaurant patrons go and park in the high rise car park or settle for side streets that are closer to their chosen destination?

Also proposed is the creation of several ‘green spines’, the closing off of Vickery Street and the extension of the rotunda area across Centre Road to meet up with Vickery Street. We fully agree that the rotunda area has been an eyesore for years and that something needs to be done about this site. As far back as February 2010 there was ‘public consultation’ on the rotunda and the following resolution was passed on the 2/2/2010. Needless to say, the issue of the rotunda and the actions councillors resolved to happen were never heard of again!

That Council:

Under take a proof of concept to redevelop the Bentleigh Rotunda site with acommercial caretaker presence at the rear and public open space adjacent to Centre Road.

Prepare artist’s impression of what the redeveloped site may look like from Centre Road and Daley Street (to assist with further community consultation).

Obtain advice to determine the most suitable commercial instrument to use to develop the site with a commercial component.

Consider a further report on this matter (including suggestions for further community consultation) on completion of the above. (unanimously passed)

Traffic along Centre Road is already crawling. Closing off more access to Centre Road will surely force cars into streets that remain open. And what of the ‘green spines’ that are to run behind the shops? What happens to the truck deliveries that service these shops from these areas? Will they be forced into Centre Road itself?

Profligacy and Waste of Public Monies

3 options are provided for the current library site in Jasper Road, including ‘develop for mix of car parking/commercial/residential opportunities’ or ‘utilise for new centralised green park’. The last option is ‘retain library in existing position’. Thus 2 out of 3 recommendations involve moving a recently redeveloped library that cost ratepayers millions and will cost heaven knows how much more to move and establish in another centre. Here is a run down of just part of what council spent on this redevelopment alone –

That Council appoint Core Properties Pty Ltd CAN 007 192 056 as the contractor under Contract Number 2010.009 Bentleigh Library Building Refurbishment Works at 161 Jasper Rd, Bentleigh for the sum of $677,703.40 (GST incl) in accordance with the terms tendered. (minutes of 11/8/2009). (The contractor lists the resultant project at $1.5m)

That Council appoint WM Loud (Aust) Pty Ltd ACN. 005 711 222 as the contractor under Contract No. 2009.039 Bentleigh Library Car Park Rehabilitation & Associated Landscaping Works at 161 Jasper Rd, Bentleigh for the sum of $506,042.02 (GST incl) in accordance with the terms tendered (minutes of 19/5/2009)

Also of interest is that in March 2007 an officer’s report into the feasibility of developing a new Bentleigh Library and Community Centre including a Library, Maternal and Child Health and associated child development and care services, senior citizens and general community facilities and amenities . was tabled. The report then stated that – The cost of building a new library and community centre with the functions set out in Council’s resolution (which are greater than the facilities at Carnegie) is estimated to be $19-$24M. (Minutes of 20/3/2007). Hence the project was shelved and only the library redevelopment was undertaken. That was ten years ago. How much would this cost today?

Inaccuracies

On page 16 of the Bentleigh report we get this paragraph – Buildings are generally up to two storeys in height, with newer development up to four storeys. There are isolated older buildings dispersed throughout. The report is dated March 2017. To therefore claim that ‘newer development’ is ‘up to four storeys’ is unacceptable given that permits have already been granted for 8 storeys well before the writing of the report, and council’s own position is that it wants a ‘preferred’ height limit of 5 storeys.

On page 3 of the report we are told – This report reviews the options for transformation projects in each centre, from an urban design perspective. An urban design approach that totally ignores built form and major development in the entire activity centre is certainly not a ‘comprehensive urban design’ evaluation in our view.

There is much, much more that could be said about these ‘concepts’. We urge all residents to voice their opinions and to insist that if council is truly committed to genuine consultation that the community’s views be incorporated into a vision that is truly representative of good strategic planning!

PS: NEWSFLASH ON INTERIM HEIGHTS FOR BENTLEIGH & CARNEGIE. SEE: http://www.nickstaikos.com.au/media-releases/new-planning-controls-to-protect-bentleigh-and-carnegie/

March 28, 2017

Structure Plans & Borders

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[8] Comments

The 3 images above depict an aspect of structure planning undertaken by different councils – and stand in stark contrast to how Glen Eira Council is approaching the same task.

Please note that:

Each of these councils includes vast areas of ‘residential’ land
Borders are clearly defined and are ‘reviewed’
Notations that ‘heritage’ areas to be ‘generally excluded’

Glen Eira’s structure planning concentrates exclusively on the main shopping strip (ie Centre Road, Glen Huntly Road, etc) and the surrounding residential areas (ie the zones) are ignored. The use of the term ‘shopping strip’ alone in the surveys was the clear giveaway!

Given that ‘structure planning’ is meant to deal with ‘activity centres’ as a whole, and that activity centres include far more than a single shopping strip, we find the approach taken by council far from adequate – especially in light of the countless comments already submitted by residents complaining about overdevelopment in their side streets. What we are therefore seeing is NOT a structure plan for an activity centre but a half baked approach to genuine community consultation and proficient strategic planning.

Finally, Council’s planning scheme clearly outlines what it considers to be an activity centre. Here is the one for Bentleigh –

By ignoring the residential areas included in the activity centre, we can only wonder at the efficacy of any resulting structure plan. If no current data on population, car ownership, developments, etc is included in the design of any future structure plan, then the very validity of the plan must be questioned. As shown in previous posts the vast majority of development is not occurring in the areas zoned Commercial, but in the abutting residential areas. The impact of this must be reviewed and questions as to capacity, infrastructure needs, etc. addressed before any window dressing occurs for the central shopping strips alone.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates